It would seem that to many, a "miracle", is simply beating the odds. I find that odd in itself. If one is given a 20% chance of surviving and they do survive, then they were fully within the odds. Having a 20% chance doesn't mean no chance. It means 1 in 5. In order for the odds to be what they are, one person in five, with a 20% chance must survive. So it's not a miracle anymore than is rolling a six on a die (1 in 6 odds).
The other thing of note is that if one has a 1 in 100 chance of dying from an affliction and they do die, no one seems to want to call that a miracle, even though it was strictly against the odds. Of course, once again, if the last 99 people survived, then it's strictly within the odds, but still of a vast minority for the potential outcomes.
For some even that for which the odds are completely in their favor can be classified as a "miracle", just so long as they're pleased with the outcome. So it appears that a miracle, to many, is nothing more than a positive outcome.
So not running out of gas can be a miracle, but seems more miraculous if one is driving through a blizzard at night, far from any signs of civilization, than if one doesn't run out of gas while driving around the block to their mother's house.
Why must a miracle always work to the benefit of the person who suggests divine intervention? Hitler credited providence when he unwittingly escaped an assassination attempt by leaving the Burgerbraukeller earlier than usual in 1939. So in his assessment, his survival was a miracle and he was a devoutly religious man. He survived and his survival was strictly against the odds so his suggestion that it was a miracle certainly seems to fit with what others consider a miracle to be. But his survival meant the death of millions. So was it a miracle? Was it actually divine intervention? Or was it simply his perspective that it was a miraculous event? Does one person's perspective out-weigh that of another and render a miraculous event other than miraculous?
That's all these suggestions seem to be -- perspective. If one favors one potential outcome over others, and receives that outcome, then they want to call the outcome a "miracle". But what is favorable for one may be tragically unfavorable for another. If we use favor to classify miracles, the suggestion is that the intervening supernatural power must always be benevolent, and benevolence is often nothing more than a matter of perspective.
Some people do indeed live on well past the point where medical professionals have predicted their death. But even most medical professionals recognize that in offering a prognosis, there is a distinct concern for legal and civil liabilities. If you tell someone they are going to survive and they don't, you can plan on getting hit with a malpractice suit. If you tell someone they're going to die and they live, everyone is happy and simply chalks it up to divine providence. So which prognosis would you make if the odds were 50/50?
Is surviving when the odds were 1 in 2, really a miracle? Or does it depend upon who you are and how many people might hate you?
